Constitution Daily» Podcastshttp://blog.constitutioncenter.org
Smart conversation from the National Constitution CenterTue, 31 Mar 2015 10:39:02 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.3Podcast: The Confederate license plate debatehttp://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/03/podcast-the-confederate-license-plate-debate/
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/03/podcast-the-confederate-license-plate-debate/#respondFri, 27 Mar 2015 10:48:47 +0000http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/?p=37997One of the more interesting cases in front of the Supreme Court this term had its day in front of the Justices this week, as lawyers argued about Texas’ right to ban state-issued license plates that feature the Confederate flag.

The Texas case came about in 2009, when Texas Sons of Confederate Veterans (or SCV) submitted an application to the state’s specialty license program for a plate design that featured the Confederate battle flag.

The Texas Department of Motor Vehicle Board declined the application, citing a policy that it “may refuse to create a new specialty license plate if the design might be offensive to any member of the public.”

The SCV sued, claiming a violation of its First Amendment free speech rights and a 14th Amendment violation, and that Texas used a government-held viewpoint to discriminate against the SCV.

Joining us to discuss the first license plate case to appear before the Court in 38 years are two experts and friends of the National Constitution Center who filed briefs in the case.

Scott Gaylord is a professor of law at Elon University. Professor Gaylord filed an amicus brief for the state of North Carolina on the side of Texas in this case. He is also co-counsel in a pending case from North Carolina about “Choose Life” license plates.

Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review. Ilya co-wrote a brief in the Walker case with P.J. O’Rourke and Nat Hentoff.

]]>http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/03/podcast-the-confederate-license-plate-debate/feed/0Podcast: The First Amendment and racist speech on college campuseshttp://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/03/podcast-the-first-amendment-and-racist-speech-on-college-campuses/
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/03/podcast-the-first-amendment-and-racist-speech-on-college-campuses/#respondThu, 19 Mar 2015 23:11:01 +0000http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/?p=37890On March 10, the University of Oklahoma expelled two students after a viral video showed them leading members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity in a song whose lyrics included racial slurs boasting that the frat would never accept an African-American member.

Greenfield and Volokh

In a letter to the two students, University President David Boren explained that they were expelled “because of your leadership role in leading a racist and exclusionary chant which has created a hostile educational environment for others.”

Boren also severed ties between the University and its SAE chapter, forcing the frat to close and its members to find new housing. For its part, the national SAE leadership apologized and closed the Oklahoma chapter; the local chapter, however, is considering legal action.

Eugene Volokh is Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law, where he teaches free speech law and a First Amendment amicus brief clinic. He is also the founder and coauthor of the Volokh Conspiracy, a leading law blog.

Volokh’s articles on his blog argue that the university’s actions to expel the students was unconstitutional.

Kent Greenfield is Professor of Law and Law Fund Research Scholar at Boston College Law School, where he teaches constitutional law.

Greenfield’s article in The Atlantic makes the argument that if the students sued and their case made it to the Supreme Court, the justices would likely rule for them – but they really shouldn’t.

]]>http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/03/podcast-the-first-amendment-and-racist-speech-on-college-campuses/feed/0Podcast: American foreign policy, Iran and the Constitutionhttp://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/03/podcast-american-foreign-policy-iran-and-the-constitution/
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/03/podcast-american-foreign-policy-iran-and-the-constitution/#respondThu, 12 Mar 2015 17:25:42 +0000http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/?p=37763Who should control American foreign policy: the President or Congress? And what does the Constitution say about that? These questions have dominated the headlines in recent week as President Obama and Republican congressional leaders have sparred over nuclear programs talks with Iran.

Bruce Ackerman and Louis Fisher

The United States, in cooperation with five other major world powers, is scrambling to meet a late March deadline in its ongoing negotiations with Iran. The U.S. wants Iran to scale back its nuclear program, while Iran seeks relief from economic and financial sanctions.

All parties insist that a preliminary framework for a deal must be in place by April in order for a full agreement to be hammered out. Any such deal on the U.S. side would likely come in the form of an executive agreement, and not a treaty subject to immediate congressional approval.

However, there is intense opposition to a potential deal in Congress, with most Republicans, and some Democrats, believing Iran will use any agreement as a pretext to keep efforts going to build nuclear weapons.

House Speaker John Boehner made his reservations known publicly when he invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress last week without consulting the Obama administration.

Then, on Monday, 47 Republican senators sent a letter to Iran’s leaders, in which they explained the role of the Senate in approving treaties. The letter also pointed out that any agreement short of a treaty could be revoked by a future Republican president.

Both acts started a wide-ranging public debate about the proper constitutional roles of the President and Congress in directing foreign policy.

Joining us to untangle the constitutional issues at stake are two leading experts and good friends of our podcast series.

Bruce Ackerman is the Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University. His latest book is We the People: The Civil Rights Revolution.

Louis Fisher is Scholar in Residence at the Constitution Project. He previously worked for four decades at the Library of Congress as a Senior Specialist in the Separation of Powers and a Specialist in Constitutional Law.

]]>http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/03/podcast-american-foreign-policy-iran-and-the-constitution/feed/0Podcast: Can a few words shut down Obamacare?http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/03/podcast-can-a-few-words-shut-down-obamacare/
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/03/podcast-can-a-few-words-shut-down-obamacare/#respondThu, 05 Mar 2015 18:10:38 +0000http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/?p=37680On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the latest case that contests part of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare.

Adler and Bagley

The case of King v. Burwell is a significant challenge to Obamacare. The Justices will try to decide if language in the act blocks people from getting tax breaks on premiums sold by federally run health-care exchanges in 34 states.

The tax credits go to people who most likely can’t afford to buy insurance at full prices on the exchanges. So a ruling that holds the subsidies are unconstitutional could have a big effect on Obamacare’s future.

The question before the Justices seems simple. Section 36B of the Affordable Care Act says that federal tax-credit subsidies for health insurance can only be offered on an “Exchange established by the State under section 1311” of the act.

The Obama administration used an IRS rule to make it clear the tax subsidies should be offered on all exchanges set up by the federal government in states that declined to set up their own Obamacare exchanges.

During the arguments, it became clear that Justice Anthony Kennedy could be a deciding factor in the decision.

Joining us to discuss the case are two leading experts who have discussed the legal controversies over Obamacare on prior We The People podcasts.

Jonathan H. Adler from Case Western Reserve University School of Law is one of the co-authors of the academic paper that led to yesterday’s King v. Burwell arguments in court.

Nicholas Bagley from the University of Michigan Law School has written about the ACA since 2011. Professor Bagley rejects the primary arguments made by Professor Adler, claiming that the plaintiffs in the case have misunderstood the meaning of the text in the law.

This week, we examine an upcoming Supreme Court case that could determine the future of the legislative redistricting process and movements to reform it.

In 2000, Arizona voters passed Proposition 106, which took congressional redistricting authority—previously vested in the Arizona state legislature—and gave it to the new Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

The commission has the power to redraw the congressional map, though there are limitations on how its members are appointed and what procedures must be followed. It is also required to allow for a public comment period after releasing its proposed congressional map.

This case will turn largely on interpretation of the Elections Clause in Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, which states that the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”

Amicus briefs have been filed by multiple nonprofit organizations, current and former politicians, and states themselves. Indeed, several states with similar independent redistricting entities—including California, New Jersey and Washington—will be left with the task of changing their redistricting laws if the Arizona legislature is victorious.

Many states and government officials have also weighed in with concerns about the fairness in redistricting procedures and the resulting impact on congressional elections. Oral arguments are slated for March 2.

Jeffrey Rosen was joined by two rising scholars in the field to discuss this important case.

Michael Morley is assistant professor of law at the Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law at Barry University, which he teaches election law and constitutional law. Michael has represented several parties, candidates and voters in election and campaign finance litigation, and he was counsel of record at the Supreme Court for Shaun McCutcheon in the landmark case of McCutcheon v. FEC.

Nick Stephanopoulos is assistant professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School, where he, too, teaches election law and constitutional law. Nick often writes about law and politics for general publications, and is involved in several policy reform initiatives. He has also been named to the National Law Journal’s “Chicago’s 40 Under 40.”

]]>http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/02/podcast-who-holds-the-redistricting-power/feed/0Podcast: Obama’s immigration policy at a legal crossroadshttp://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/02/podcast-obamas-immigration-policy-at-a-legal-crossroads/
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/02/podcast-obamas-immigration-policy-at-a-legal-crossroads/#respondThu, 19 Feb 2015 20:34:05 +0000http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/?p=37516News this week that a federal District Court in Texas has temporarily blocked President Obama’s latest immigration programs has set off a debate about the ruling and its implications.

Ilya Shapiro and Michael Dorf

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen of Brownsville, Texas, issued a ruling that put the Obama administration’s deferred deportation policy on hold until he conducts a full trial on its legality. The Obama administration will appeal Hanen’s ruling and there is already speculation that the issue will percolate up to the Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs included the state of Texas and 25 other states led by Republicans. They argued that President Obama lacks authority to promote immigration programs that should be handled by Congress and he breached his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Judge Hanen said he would grant the injunction due to a procedural point, because the Department of Homeland Security didn’t seek public reaction under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) before implementing the new immigration programs.

Hanen didn’t rule on a major Republican complaint, that President Obama violated the Constitution’s Take Care clause, but the legal debate over Hanen’s ruling is just starting to take off.

Joining us to discuss these core questions are two members of our new Coalition of Freedom advisory board.

Michael Dorf is the Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law at Cornell University Law School. Mike has written over 70 law review articles and essays on constitutional law, and he also writes the very popular Dorf On Law blog.

Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review. Ilya has contributed to a variety of academic, popular, and professional publications, and as coordinator of Cato’s amicus brief program, he has filed more than 100 “friend of the court” briefs in the Supreme Court.

]]>http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/02/podcast-obamas-immigration-policy-at-a-legal-crossroads/feed/0Podcast: Presidential powers and the Constitutionhttp://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/02/podcast-presidential-powers-and-the-constitution/
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/02/podcast-presidential-powers-and-the-constitution/#respondFri, 13 Feb 2015 16:22:16 +0000http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/?p=37389As America nears the celebration of another Presidents Day, the debate continues about the proper role of the executive in our constitutional government.

The controversies over presidential powers in the Obama administration have centered on the use of executive orders, the executive’s war-making ability, and his prerogative over enforcing laws passed by Congress.

These issues are hardly new or novel to the realm of the White House. Discussions during the Constitution Convention of 1787 focused greatly on the executive’s purpose, even though the delegates in Philadelphia fully understood George Washington would be the nation’s first President.

Since then, various Presidents have interpreted their constitutional powers in different ways. And many scholars have analyzed how faithful Presidents have been to the Founders’ intentions or how Presidents have changed their understanding of their constitutional powers to fit the times they lived in.

On this podcast, we are joined by two of the top scholars of our times to discuss one critical question: Which Presidents have the greatest legacies of being faithful to the Constitution in exercising their far-reaching powers?

Erwin Chemerinsky is the founding Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, and Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law, at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. In January 2014, National Jurist magazine named Dean Chemerinsky as the most influential person in legal education in the United States.

Richard Epstein is Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director of the Classical Liberal Institute at the New York University School of Law. Professor Epstein was just at the National Constitution Center this fall discussing his landmark new book, “The Classical Liberal Constitution.”

]]>http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/02/podcast-presidential-powers-and-the-constitution/feed/0Podcast: A bipartisan effort to promote constitutional awarenesshttp://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/02/podcast-a-bipartisan-effort-to-promote-constitutional-awareness/
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/02/podcast-a-bipartisan-effort-to-promote-constitutional-awareness/#respondWed, 04 Feb 2015 16:46:06 +0000http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/?p=37221On February 4, National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen talked about an important new project to promote constitutional awareness in a special podcast.

The Coalition will bring together the best scholars in America to participate in Town Hall constitutional debates across the country and to create the best non-partisan Interactive Constitution on the web.

The National Constitution Center in Philadelphia is pleased to announce the members of its new scholarly Coalition of Freedom Advisory Board, co-chaired by leaders of conservative Federalist Society and the liberal American Constitution Society.

The Coalition of Freedom board is composed of 27 constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum.

And on this special podcast, we would like to introduce to our listeners to the scholarly co-chairs of that board: Richard Pildes and Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz.

Pildes is the Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law at New York University School of Law. He is a leading expert on election law, and is one of the nation’s leading scholars of public law and a specialist in legal issues affecting democracy.

Rosenkranz is Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. He teaches constitutional law and federal jurisdiction, and he writes articles for the Harvard Law Review and the Stanford Law Review.

To learn more about this exciting project and why it is so important to students, educators and people who care about constitutional issues, you can listen to the full podcast in the player below or at the following link:Download this episode (right click and save)

]]>http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/01/podcast-jeffrey-rosen-answers-your-constitutional-questions-2/feed/0Podcast: Should elected judges be allowed to ask for donations?http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/01/podcast-should-elected-judges-be-allowed-to-ask-for-donations/
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/01/podcast-should-elected-judges-be-allowed-to-ask-for-donations/#respondThu, 22 Jan 2015 18:47:33 +0000http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/?p=37036One of the most interesting cases in the Supreme Court this term is about state-level judges who have to run for office, and their ability to raise campaign funds.

The debate focuses on the First Amendment rights of these judges to personally ask for money to offset campaign costs, versus concerns that it’s improper for judges to directly ask for funds in any context.

Judges are elected in 39 states and in 30 of those states there is a law or an ethics provision that bans judicial candidates from personally asking for campaign donations.

The case of Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar involves Lanell Williams-Yulee, a candidate for county clerk judge in Florida. She personally signed a 2009 campaign fundraising letter, an act that the Florida Bar said violated the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct.

The Florida Supreme Court agreed with the Florida Bar’s assessment that the mass mailing and website letter violated Canon 7C(1) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.

“The personal solicitation of campaign funds, even by mass mailing, raises an appearance of impropriety and calls into question, in the public’s mind, the judge’s impartiality,” the state court said.

Then Williams-Yulee’s attorneys asked the United States Supreme Court to settle what appeared to be a simple question: “Whether a rule of judicial conduct that prohibits candidates for judicial office from personally soliciting campaign funds violates the First Amendment.”

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments from both sides, and there are early indications that the Justices’ decision could be a close one.

Joining us to discuss the case are two of the leading experts on judicial and First Amendment matters in America.

Bob Corn-Revere is a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine in Washington, D.C. He writes extensively on First Amendment and communications-related issues. Bob wrote the amicus brief for the American Civil Liberties Union in the Williams-Yulee case. He also obtained the first posthumous pardon in New York history, for the late comedian Lenny Bruce in a landmark pro bono case.

Burt Neuborne is the Inez Milholland Professor of Civil Liberties and founding Legal Director of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School. For 50 years, Burt has been one of the nation’s foremost civil liberties lawyers. He also submitted an amicus brief in this case as a past leader of the ACLU.